Corn producers are used to buying new hybrid seeds each year to retain hybrid vigor. However, genetic royalty fees for soybeans and other genetically engineered crops tend to be unpopular among some producers who argue that seeds they produce are theirs to use or sell -- or plant. As a result, seed companies sometimes have difficulty collecting such fees, especially in Argentina or Brazil.

In a dispute over genetic royalties from Argentine soybeans, Monsanto recently used legal pressure to force Spain's customs agency to seize two shipments of soymeal that it alleges were produced using Roundup Ready seeds without paying royalties. It is pressing for restitution in Spanish and other European courts.

Roundup Ready soybeans have patent protection in many countries, but not in Argentina, Monsanto says. It claims its current legal strategy is intended to assert patent rights on Argentine seed rather than on actually collecting money from seized consignments. However, it has reserved the right to demand substantial fees before agreeing that the Argentine shipments can continue.

Monsanto is using European courts for its claims because of its lack of success in Argentina, industry experts say. And, it is likely legal pressure on Argentine soybean products in transit will attract Argentine government attention since exports of soybeans and products are the single largest hard-currency earner for the country and taxes on products moving overseas are a key source of government revenues. The government previously supported efforts to create a special fund to compensate Monsanto for its loss of royalties, but that project was opposed in the Argentine Congress by farm lobbies.

To no one's surprise, Monsanto's action in Spain is extremely unpopular with Argentine producers, who are urging the government to sue the company and seize its Argentine assets. Farmers there say that they recognize Monsanto's right to royalties but condemn what they call its bullying tactics.

The long-standing efforts by Monsanto and other seed companies to collect royalties on their seeds could have at least indirect effects on U.S. producers, as well. To the extent that farmers in the United States pay annual fees for advanced genetics while those in competing countries do not, they are at an important competitive disadvantage. As a result, this dispute and seed company efforts to level the international playing field for genetics costs is one U.S. producers should watch carefully as it unfolds over the coming months, Washington Insider believes.

Growing disquiet amongst consumers led in recent years to the introduction by the
European Union of a new package of laws governing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
These measures represented a step forward, offering greatly improved labelling of GM
foodstuffs and obliging member states to make public the sites of any GMO cultivation.

Unfortunately, however, the problems which the package left unresolved have since become
more pressing, and the inadequacies of the legislation have been ever more starkly
revealed. The European Commission's refusal to draw up centralised rules for protecting
conventional and organic crops from contamination by GMOs created the first problem, and,
happily enough, led directly to last summer's reimposition of a moratorium on new
cultivation.

A lack of action from Brussels is generally to be welcomed.
Unfortunately, while the Commission has left the member states to draw up their own rules
to prevent contamination, it has also more than once refused to approve moves by some of
them to declare sensitive areas GM-free. In the UK, the Welsh Assembly's attempt to ban
GMOs from the country's farms were quashed, as were similar moves by Austrian regions.

Yet evidence is accumulating that the only way to prevent GMOs from contaminating other
plants is either to grow them in closed systems, or not to grow them at all. Exclusion
zones such as that recently proposed by the Estonian government, which would require a
gap of only 20 metres between GM crops and others, are clearly absurd. The problem is,
however, that even 20 kms or 20 miles might not be enough.

Plants employ a variety of reproductive strategies. Those which do not produce seeds
light enough to be carried by the wind may have to resort to the birds and the bees to
spread their genes - or to the boots of farmworkers and hikers, the tyres of tractors and
cars, and the fur or pelts of passing animals.

Wherever transgenic plants are grown, they will spread. Native plants will be
jeopardised. Insects which feed on them will be affected. The birds and bats which eat
the insects will then take their turn. And so on, right up to the creatures, such as
birds of prey, foxes and homo sapiens, who stand at the top of these food chains.

Experiments involving GMOs have time and again produced unexpected and destructive
results. Transgenic proteins in tomatoes, potatoes and maize have caused stomach lesions,
transformation of vital intestinal flora, and serious damage to the immune systems of
rats, mice and chickens.

Outside the laboratory, contamination of farmland and ecosystems following the
cultivation of GMOs has been shown to last longer and be more far-reaching than was ever
anticipated. Government-sponsored research, published by the Royal Society, showed that
GM oilseed rape contaminates a field for up to 15 years after it has been harvested.
Researchers found that fifteen years after planting a single modified crop, on average a
GM plant would grow in every square metre of an affected field. This is enough, under
current law, to require any resulting product to be labelled as containing GMOs.

Research published in France in 2004 showed that the relatively large pollen grains of
maize can be carried on the wind for distances far greater than any which could viably be
used to separate GMOs for other crops. The scientists involved tracked movement of pollen
using an aircraft. They refused to give a precise figure for how far a maize pollen grain
might travel, but spoke of "dozens of kilometres".

Clearly, for any farmer to find that he or she had inadvertently grown GMOs would be
damaging, especially at a time when food retailers and others are frantically searching
for GM-free sources. Beyond damage to livelihoods, moreover, are the consequences for the
environment as a whole. What can contaminate a neighbouring field can equally well enter
the ecosystem surrounding a farm. Plants modified to resist broad-spectrum herbicides (so
that a field can be sprayed to kill all weeds without damaging the crop) have led to the
evolution of "superweeds" impervious to any known chemical control. Plants modified to
produce their own insecticides have been shown to threaten benign and beneficial species
as well as their targets.

The growing realisation in some EU member state governments that once you have bought
into agricultural biotechnology there is no way back, has mercifully so far held up its
spread.
It is now time, however, to insist that the government follow the Swiss example and
introduce a moratorium not only on planting but on any marketing, use, or import of
genetically modified organisms or products derived from them.

The Swiss moratorium is limited to five years, which will surely not be long enough. The
moratorium which we should be demanding would not be limited in time but would persist
until the biotech corporations, who are the only ones who stand to gain any benefit, can
prove to us that their products are safe. That might prove impossible for them, of
course, but frankly that is their problem, not ours. It would be our problem too only if
GMOs offered any real benefits. Transgenics, we were told, would banish hunger and attack
disease. Instead, they have failed to offer anything of value even to relatively well-off
consumers in countries like our own, let alone to people in parts of the world where
children still die from malnutrition or diarrhoea.

People do not go hungry because the world lacks the resources to feed them. They go
hungry because of appalling inequalities of wealth and power, inequalities which the
introduction of GMOs under the control of US and European corporations can only reinforce.

Steve McGiffen edits spectrezine and was formerly an adviser on environmental policy to
the United Left Group of Euro-MPs (GUE/NGL). This article, which is based on a speech he
made to a hearing on GMOs organised by the GUE/NGL at the European Parliament in Brussels
on 11th January, was previously published in The Morning Star. His book, Biotechnology:
Corporate Power versus the Public Interest, which includes a comprehensive glbal review
of existing biotechnology-related legislation, was published by Pluto Press last year.

But for Michelle Lutz, an organic vegetable farmer, and Herb Smith, a
planter of genetically modified soybeans, the job requires more these days than
simply tending their fields in St. Clair and Monroe counties.

They're on opposite sides of a budding battle in Lansing over legislation
that pits natural, chemical-free crops against genetically engineered seeds.
The bill not only is prompting a basic fight for economic viability among
growers, it's raising questions about food safety and who should regulate it.

"We give people a unique relationship with their food," said the 34-year-old
Lutz, whose 80-acre organic farm 55 miles north of Detroit ships fresh
produce to 1,000 families every week from June through October. "They get to know
who, how, why, where and when."

Lutz is worried, however, about legislation in the state Senate that would
prevent local governments from barring the planting of seeds, including
genetically modified crops. Pollen from farms with genetically modified crops can
drift onto her Yale-area farm and corrupt the "organic" status of her food,
she says.

Five California counties and cities have restricted growing genetically
modified organisms since 2004. Fourteen states have since passed laws pre-empting
similar measures in their backyards, prodded by large seed companies and an
increasing number of farmers who plant their genetically modified products.

Smith, who farms 900 acres near Temperance, says he supports the Senate bill
because he could keep planting his engineered soybeans - which have received
federal approval - without intrusion from local governments. Because the
soybeans are engineered to specifically resist a cheaper weed killer, Smith says
he saves about $20 an acre by not using conventional herbicides.

"I wouldn't sell you stuff out of here that I didn't think was safe," said
Smith, 76, who first planted genetically modified soybeans in 1996.

Up to 85 percent of U.S. soybeans are genetically modified along with 45
percent of corn. It's estimated that 70 percent of processed foods on U.S.
grocery shelves contain genetically modified ingredients.

"I'm not afraid of change. I'm not afraid of GMOs," Smith said. "I'm
concerned that well-meaning people will pass rules that will destroy farming as we
know it." [interesting, that "farming as we know it" has only existed since
1996 and largely affects just 3 crops]

Critics worry that so-called "frankenfoods" pose allergy risks to humans,
contaminate the natural ecosystem, lead to more chemical spraying and create
other unknown, long-term health dangers. Another big concern is government
oversight.
Douglas Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Washington-based Center for
Food Safety, says the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lets the agricultural
industry decide how best to test the safety of genetically modified seeds.

"It is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house," said
Gurian-Sherman, a former Environmental Protection Agency scientist who recently testified
before a Senate panel in Lansing. Since there are few federal regulations, he
says, "the state and local jurisdictions are necessary to protect the public
and send a message to Washington that they need to do a better job."

The bill's sponsor in the state Senate, Republican Gerald Van Woerkom of
Norton Shores, says genetically modified crops generally benefit society by
reducing the amount of chemicals in the environment, among other things. But he
wants his committee to hold off on voting on the measure until he looks into
Gurian-Sherman's testimony questioning federal oversight.

The Michigan Farm Bureau and other backers of the bill say safety fears are
unfounded and federal officials have created proper regulatory checkpoints.
Biotechnology cuts down on the use of herbicides and pesticides, which saves
fuel and labor costs. It also makes drought-resistant crops that grow faster,
produces better yields and reduces greenhouse gases, they argue.

Opponents say the bill isn't necessary because local governments in Michigan
haven't passed rules against genetically modified crops. Yet farmers,
feeling outnumbered as urban sprawl reaches their communities, think it's only a
matter of time before township boards and county commissions meddle in their
seed choices.

Tonia Ritter, legislative counsel for the Michigan Farm Bureau, says the
emotional issue has split members of her group.

The seed bill is Senate Bill 777.

4. Moratorium on Terminator Technology reaffirmed, but with
qualifications

Third World Network Biosafety Information Service
29 January 2006

The fourth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Intersessional Working Group
on Article 8(j) and related provisions of the Convention on Biological
Diversity met in Granada, Spain from 23-27 January.

On the final day of the meeting, the Working Group finalized its
recommendation on GURTs (popularly known as Terminator Technologies),
which will be forwarded to the eighth meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to be held in
March 2006.

The 8(j) Working Group reaffirmed the CBD’s existing "de facto"
moratorium on GURTs. However, this was weakened by the inclusion of
language in another paragraph, at the insistence of Australia, that
further research and studies on potential impacts and other aspects of
GURTs, be undertaken on a case by case risk assessment basis. Parties
repeatedly clashed on many issues, and it was clear that some Parties
are determined to undermine the moratorium.

However, Parties to the CBD will still have a crucial opportunity to
strengthen the decision on GURTs at COP8, which will make the final
decision. Indigenous peoples, farmers and NGOs are calling for an
international ban on Terminator Technology.

Countries could, as sovereign nations, enact national legislation that
bans GURTs. Furthermore, farmers as well as indigenous and local
communities would now be assisted to apply the "de facto" moratorium
within their communities and territories.

CBD moratorium on Terminator Technology reaffirmed, but with qualifications

Granada, 28 January 2006 (Third World Network) - The fourth meeting of
the Ad Hoc Open-ended Intersessional Working Group on Article 8(j) and
related provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which
ended on 27 January, saw Parties clashing repeatedly over the issue of
Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs).

The 8(j) Working Group reaffirmed the Convention on Biological
Diversity’s (CBD) existing "de facto" moratorium on GURTs. However, this
was weakened by the inclusion of language in another paragraph, at the
insistence of Australia, that further research and studies on potential
impacts and other aspects of GURTs, be undertaken on a case by case risk
assessment basis.

GURTs are also popularly known as Terminator Technologies. Terminator
Technology is a genetic engineering technique that renders seeds sterile
at harvest, thus preventing farmers from saving and re-using seed, a
practice carried out by millions of farmers, particularly in developing
countries. Apart from these socio-economic impacts, there are also
serious threats posed to agrobiodiversity and biodiversity.

In 2000, the CBD adopted Decision V/5 (Agricultural biological
diversity) section III, paragraph 23, which recommends that Parties not
approve GURTs for field-testing or commercial use, until transparent
scientific assessments of its impacts are made and its socio-economic
impacts validated, thereby establishing a "de facto" moratorium on GURTs.

The 8(j) Working Group met in Granada, Spain from 23-27 January, and one
of the issues on its agenda was on the potential socio-economic impacts
of GURTs on indigenous and local communities. On the final day of the
meeting, the Working Group finalized its recommendation on GURTs, which
will be forwarded to the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties
to the CBD, to be held in Curitiba, Brazil in March 2006. Parties to the
CBD would still have an opportunity to strengthen the decision on GURTs
at COP8, which will make the final decision.

One of the most contentious issues in the recommendation had to do with
the inclusion of language recommending case-by-case risk assessments for
further research and studies on potential impacts and other aspects of
GURTs. The drafting group that was formed to draft the recommendation
had adjourned the day before (26 January) without agreeing on this, and
had placed the paragraph in brackets. However, informal consultations
were made among the contending Parties as the Sub-Working Group went
into plenary, and there they approved the removal of the brackets.

Paragraph 2(b) of the decision reads:

"2. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations and
stakeholders, to:
(b) Promote cooperation and synergies between agencies and experts in
order to undertake further research and studies on potential impacts and
other aspects of genetic use restriction technologies, including their
ecological, socio-economic and cultural impacts on indigenous and local
communities, including on a case by case risk assessment basis with
respect to various categories of GURTs technology subject to the
precautionary approach."

The reference to case by case risk assessments could undermine the "de
facto" moratorium, as it may open the door for the countries pushing to
field test and commercialize GURTs, to do so at their national level.

However, the reference to case by case assessments has been subjected to
a qualification, through the inclusion of a footnote to Paragraph 2(b)
of the recommendation. The EU, in the final plenary meeting, explained
the details. The footnote reads as follows: "this is meant to be with
respect to different variations within different categories of GURTs
technologies."

When the Philippines asked for clarification on what this meant,
Australia said it was "to enable greater clarity, to make it quite
clear" what these assessments would be all about.

An NGO delegate representing the Federation of German Scientists had a
different view, saying these assessments would be "further down the
road", and in the meanwhile this will lead to national level
decision-making on GURTs, a scenario which may not be good, as most
governments do not have national biosafety regulations to deal with
these issues.

Norway also spoke about its grave concern about this point but given the
qualification, it believed it could go along with such a footnote.
Uganda also voiced its support for the footnote.

The Chair of the Working Group, Amb. Jose Cuenca of Spain, instructed
the Rapporteur to take into account these observations in his final
report of the Meeting. It is however unclear whether the footnote
qualification will be sufficient to roll back the danger posed by
including the reference to case by case risk assessments for GURTs.

In any case, it is clear that the "de facto" moratorium on field-testing
and commercialization of GURTs remains. Furthermore, countries could, as
sovereign nations, still enact national legislation that bans GURTs.

Even farmers as well as indigenous and local communities would now be
assisted, through, among other things, capacity-building activities that
will enable them to apply Decision V/5, part III on GURTS, within their
communities and territories.

Australia had won the inclusion of the wording on case by case risk
assessment by using it as a bargaining chip, in return for dropping its
initial insistence during the drafting group discussions, that reference
to the precautionary approach be removed in the preambular paragraph of
the then draft decision.

During those discussions, the Philippines, the EU, and Norway opposed
Australia’s proposal, as it would have meant that any decisions relating
to GURTs would not be guided by the precautionary principle, one of the
cornerstones of the Rio Declaration as well as the Convention on
Biological Diversity. The drafting group eventually came to consensus
when it was agreed that the references to Principle 15 of the Rio
Declaration, as requested by New Zealand, would be couched in language
that will also refer to the Preamble of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.

Discussions on the draft recommendation saw many other clashes between
Parties. One disputed item delved on whether the socio-economic impacts
of GURTs were a mix of both positive and negative. Australia, together
with the US on the floor, and a pro-industry scientific group, wanted
this, along with the word "aspects", which most of the delegations
opposed. Uganda pointed out that even the title of the agenda item used
the word "impacts" rather than "aspects". Australia insisted "aspects"
was broader, which was greeted by dissatisfied grunts from those
observing the drafting group.

The delegates agreed to remove both the words "positive and negative"
and settled to have both the words "impacts" and "aspects" in the text.
References to the "potential benefits such as increasing productivity"
were also removed without much debate after this agreement.

However, tempers flared when Australia wanted to replace the word
"Reaffirms" in the first preambular paragraph with either "notes" or
"recalls", referring to the 2000 decision of CBD COP V, which many
observers see as a decision that imposed the "de facto" moratorium on
GURTs. Australia, helped along by Canada and New Zealand, claimed that
there was nothing wrong with the words "notes" or "recalls", though some
observers said that it is absurd for a COP to take note of its own
decision, as if it is not aware that it has made such decision in the
first place.

As discussions dragged on, the delegate from the Philippines reminded
the delegate from Canada that in the Friends of the Chair meeting in
Bangkok in 2004, where both of them were present, there was an agreement
then to revisit the 2000 decision of the COP in the light of new
technologies and related developments. Thus there is a need to determine
whether some of the conclusions of the 2000 decision are still valid at
this present time, and hence the need for a reaffirmation of whether
that decision is still valid or not.

Canada then did not insist on changing the word "reaffirms" but
Australia was adamant that both the words "reaffirms" and "recalls" be
placed in brackets, to show that such words were not agreed upon by the
delegates and would need to be revisited at some future time by the COP
of the CBD. Eventually, the desire of the majority prevailed, and the
final recommendation from the Working Group reaffirms the previous CBD
decision.

Another difficult item centered on the invitation for CBD Parties,
governments and relevant organizations to respect the rights of farmers
to save and use seeds. Canada suggested that some references to its
national legislation be made to reflect its situation, but the
Philippines opposed it as the impression made was that Canada was trying
to bring in language from the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture, of which Farmers’ Rights in its
Article 9 is still made subject to national legislation.

Canada clarified that they are not doing so but the Secretariat inserted
language that made it appear that such farmers’ rights should be made in
accordance with national legislation, leading some indigenous leaders in
the room, to shout, in their own language, that that formulation was
simply unacceptable. A delegate from Africa said that the words in the
text should refer to farm-saved seeds, which again elicited protests
from the indigenous leaders in the room, as they said that not all the
time do they save and use seeds only from the farm.

Language was then proposed to specify that the rights of farmers and
indigenous and local communities to save and use seeds would be
respected. Canada again harped that their national situation needed to
be taken into account, thus their insistence on language that takes
account their national law on this matter of saving and re-using seeds.

Finally, it was agreed to keep intact, as a general principle, the right
of farmers and local and indigenous communities to save, use and
exchange their seeds, and to just take into account Canada’s situation
in a separate clause, within the same paragraph.

Another contentious item referred to technology transfer but got mixed
up in the sharp verbal exchanges between the Philippines and Australia
on whether capacity-building relating to GURTs would include the
enablement of farmers and local and indigenous communities to implement
Decision V/5, the 2000 COP decision which set the "de facto" moratorium
on GURTs.

Australia simply went ballistic over the word "implement", saying this
simply could not be done at the local level. The Philippines asserted
that that was precisely what needs to be done, as most farmers and
indigenous and local communities simply have no idea about these
international discussions and the capacity-building efforts should
simply apprise them that there is a moratorium at the international
level and that they should be helped to act, in accordance with their
customary rules and practices, to take steps to put this moratorium into
effect within their communities and territories. The EU mediated between
the two and the word "implement" was changed to "application". Thus,
there is language in the final recommendation that capacity building
efforts would help farmers and local and indigenous communities apply
the moratorium.

There was also some discussion on whether to call on Parties to ensure
the participation of local and indigenous communities in future
deliberations of the CBD on this issue. However, the Secretariat told
the meeting that the Parties could not be forced or compelled to allow
indigenous and local communities to join their CBD delegations; it was a
matter of sovereignty whether a Party wanted to include indigenous and
local communities in their delegations.

Final discussions centered on whether to call on WIPO, UNESCO and the
Human Rights Commission to investigate the patent record on GURTs and
assess its ethical and spiritual implications. The WIPO representative
said that it would be out of their mandate to tackle the ethical and
related aspects, but Egypt insisted that it would be up to these
international bodies, to act within their mandate to examine this
request. He said that if the international organizations find that it is
out of their mandate, then it should just tell the CBD such fact, and
work on the request in accordance within its mandate.

Many observers familiar with the processes of WIPO said that it would
take some time for WIPO to decide on this, especially if the request is
seen as something out of their mandate, and there could be a possibility
that they would reject this request, which may effectively set back the
data-gathering exercise on the patent landscape on GURTs. But,
ultimately, it is up to the WIPO General Assembly to decide on what to
do with this request

5. Statement on WTO decision on genetically modified foods

January 20, 2006
TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD)

News reports indicate that early in 2006, the World Trade Organization
(WTO) is expected to rule in favor of the United States on a Bush
Administration challenge to European delays in approving new types of
genetically modified (GM) foods and various European Union member state
bans on specific GM varieties.

The current U.S. case does not challenge present European Community (EC)
regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which include
rules on safety testing, labeling and traceability, but concerns the
EU's delay in granting new approvals of GM crops while the European-wide
policies were being put into effect.

The Bush Administration claims that the EU's delay in granting new GM
crop approvals has resulted in lost markets for American farmers. But
clearly consumers' preference for non-GM food is the true engine of the
market collapse for American crops. Even before the delay in GM crop
approvals began in 1998, U.S. corn sales to Europe had dropped by more
than half.

"The US effort to force GM foods upon unwilling consumers is offensive
and misguided," said Jim Murray of the European consumer organization
BEUC. "Consumers cannot be forced to buy and eat food that they do not
want."

TACD has vigorously protested the United States suit and has repeatedly
urged the US and the EU to resolve disputes over consumer, public health
and environmental matters outside of the WTO where public interest
regulations are regularly ruled against in the name of free trade.
If the WTO panel rules against the right of individual governments to
regulate the use of GM products, the shock waves will be global. The
number of countries that regulate GM products in the public interest is
growing rapidly and today half of the world's population lives in
countries that require premarket approval of these products. Even in the
United States, three California counties ban growing of all GM crops.
"This suit can be seen as a preemptive effort to chill the development
of new policies for regulating GM crops around the globe," said Rhoda
Karpatkin representing the US-based Consumers Union. "Ironically, the US
may have won the battle but it is losing the war. A WTO ruling in favor
of the U.S. will only increase consumer suspicion of GM crops and of a
global trading system that subsumes the public interest to the interests
of giant biotechnology firms."

In a similar WTO case, in 1996 the US launched a case on behalf of the
US Cattlemen's Association against Europe's ban on hormone-treated beef.
Yet while the U.S. "won" the beef-hormone dispute in 1999, Europe has
still not opened its markets to U.S. beef, because European consumers do
not want hormones in their meat. The repercussions of this case are
still being felt almost ten years later as the EC continues to pay a
ransom in the form of $116 million dollars worth of punitive trade
sanction for the privilege of maintaining their public health policy on
hormones. The EC recently counter sued in the WTO to get these sanctions
lifted.

TACD, which includes all the major consumer organizations on both sides
of the Atlantic, supports labeling and safety testing of GMOs, and
consumer choice about consuming them.

UNITED NATIONS - Groups fighting for the rights of peasant communities are stepping up
pressure on governments to ban the use of genetically modified ''suicide seeds'' at
UN-sponsored talks on biodiversity in Spain this week.

''This technology is an assault on the traditional knowledge, innovation, and practices
of local and indigenous communities,'' said Debra Harry, executive director of the
U.S.-based Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism.

The group is among organizations urging United Nations experts to recommend that
governments adopt tough laws against field testing and selling Terminator technology,
which refers to plants that have had their genes altered so that they render sterile
seeds at harvest. Because of this trait, some activists call Terminator products
''suicide seeds.''

Developed by multinational agribusinesses and the U.S. government, Terminator has the
effect of preventing farmers from saving or replanting seeds from one growing season to
the next.

The product is being tested in greenhouses throughout the United States. Opponents fear
it is likely to be marketed soon unless governments impose a ban.

''Terminator seeds will become a commercial reality unless governments take action to
prevent it,'' said Hope Shand of the Canada-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology,
and Concentration (ETC Group).

If commercialized, activists said, Terminator would force farmers to return to the market
for seeds every year, adding to their annual costs. This also would spell the end of
locally adapted agriculture through seed selection, because most farmers in the world
today routinely save seeds from their harvest for replanting.

''This seed technology is a fundamental violation of the human rights of indigenous
people,'' Harry said of Terminator. ''It is a breach of the right of self-determination.''

Environmental and consumer advocates also have said that genetically modified
crops--ranging from Terminator to ''Round Up Ready'' varieties designed to survive the
heavy duty herbicide Round Up--offer the promise of fat profits for their developers,
marketers, and political supporters while threatening farmers with lean times and
consumers with ill-health.

''The promise of increased profit is too enticing for industry to give up on Terminator
seeds,'' says Lucy Sharratt of the International Ban Terminator Campaign.

The issue has pitted some governments against their citizens. Canadian government
officials at a UN meeting in Bangkok last year pushed for language allowing the field
testing and sale of Terminator. But they backed down in response to strong public
criticism at home.

For their part, biotech companies have enjoyed limited success in trying to influence
governments' policies in favor of using Terminator seeds. Their main argument: that
Terminator's higher cost is more than compensated for in improved crop yield and quality
at harvest time.

Governments generally have distinguished between different types of genetic modification.
Many--especially those in industrially developing regions of the world--have resisted
pressure from the biotechnology industry and the U.S. government and maintain a strong
stand against Terminator.

The government of Brazil--the world's fifth most populous country and a major
agricultural producer--last year enacted a law that prohibits the use, registration,
patenting, and licensing of genetically modified (GM) seeds. India, a predominantly
agrarian nation and home to more than one billion people, has done the same.

However, a number of governments have agreed with industry statements that other genetic
modifications can play a significant role in combating hunger at negligible risk to the
environment.

Even so, a 100-page report released last week by Friends of the Earth (FoE), a leading
international environmental group, concludes that only a handful of countries have
introduced and increased the use of genetically modified crops--and then again, largely
because of aggressive lobbying by the biotech industry.

Entitled ''Who Benefits from GM Crops?'' the report says that after 10 years of GM crop
cultivation, more than 80 percent of the area cultivated with biotech crops is still
concentrated in only three countries: the United States, Argentina, and Canada.

In other countries--including Paraguay and Brazil, GM crops were planted illegally and in
Indonesia, they were planted after government officials were bribed, FoE said.

This week's UN talks in Madrid are scheduled to continue until Friday.

BUENOS AIRES (Dow Jones) -- Monsanto, a leading maker of farm seeds, has asked Spanish customs officials to inspect samples of soybean meal products recently shipped to that country from Argentina as part of a broader effort to force Argentine farmers to pay for the right to use Monsanto-made soybean seeds, the company confirmed Thursday.

Monsanto has tried for two years to get the Argentine government to help address Monsanto's claims that Argentine farmers properly pay the company's Roundup Ready soybean seeds only about 20 percent of the time. The rest of the time, farmers use the seeds without paying for them. Often the seeds are bought illegally in an underground seed market or replanted after each harvest. That, Monsanto says, is unacceptable.

In June, Monsanto began filing lawsuits over the shipment of soybean products to the E.U. Many E.U. nations recognize Monsanto's patent on the genetically modified seeds, which are used to plant 95 percent of the soybeans in Argentina. In contrast, the Argentine government has never allowed Monsanto to patent the seeds.

"Unfortunately, despite two years of discussions the parties have failed to conclude an agreement to pay for the (Roundup Ready) technology which has delivered $1 billion of value per year over the last 10 years for the Argentina economy, and significantly more supply choices for European customer," Monsanto said in a statement.

The European feed industry, which imports up to 10 million tons of soybean meal annually from Argentina, last year called on the government and farmers here to resolve this dispute so that it doesn't affect trade with the E.U.

Argentine Agriculture Secretary Miguel Campos has slammed Monsanto, saying its effort to collect royalties on soybean seeds show that it is a "greedy" company that cares little for the well-being of local farmers. He has said the company's lawsuits in the E.U. are equivalent to "extortion."

Monsanto says negotiations with the Argentine government and local farmers have so far proven to be feckless.

"A new crop is about to be harvested, the third harvest since discussions have taken place," the company said.

"(A)nd since no agreement has been reached yet, Monsanto has no other choice but to ensure the protection of its rights and therefore file legal actions on a shipment by shipment basis to seek damages for patent infringement for any imports of unlicensed patented technology into markets where Monsanto holds patents."

8. Austria bans Monsanto's GM oilseed rape

Friends of the Earth news release
Jan. 23, 2006

Friends of the Earth has today welcomed the decision by the Austrian
Government to ban Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape. This brings the
total number of European bans on GM foods or crops to twelve [1]. The
decision by the current EU presidency follows November's referendum in Switzerland
which put in place a five year moratorium on growing GM crops and comes ahead
of the WTO GM dispute ruling, which will include whether countries are
allowed to impose such bans. Friends of the Earth is calling on the UK Government
to follow suit.

The Austrian decision to ban Monsanto's oilseed rape, GT73, is based on the
risk of genetic contamination and the inadequate risk assessment carried out
before the European Commission authorised it for import in August 2005. This
authorisation came despite a majority of EU Environment Ministers blocking
its approval in December 2004 [2] for environmental and health reasons.

Friends of the Earth wrote to the Government following the approval of GT73
oilseed rape, urging it to impose a national ban in the UK to protect health
and the environment, but it refused.

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner, Clare Oxborrow said:

"The Austrian decision to ban this GM oilseed rape is a clear sign of the
growing frustration with the EU's undemocratic decisions to approve GM food.
Opposition to GM crops and food is growing - in the UK over eighteen million
people live in GM free areas. It is time the UK Government accepted that there
are genuine concerns surrounding this GM oilseed rape, and banned it too.

GMOs are now banned in seven European countries, while the number of EU
regions banning GMOs is also growing:>
*172 Regions in the European Union and 4500 local authorities and other
zones have now declared themselves GMO free [3] and are calling for the right of
Regions to decide whether or not to grow GMOs. This includes 60 local
authorities in the UK.
*In June 2005, the EU Commission was defeated by Member States when it tried
to force them to drop national GMO bans [4].